Why is it okay for the “right” to support an illegal war based on lies that has slaughtered thousands of Iraqi children?

Why do they continue to support the slaughter of Gazan children in support of a corrupt government in Israel?

I guess George Carlin was right – it’s okay to kill them once they’re out of the womb.

For example:

Feminists speak of defending women’s rights YET often wish rape upon the female who isn’t part of the Feminist groupthink.

Catholics speak of protecting innocent life YET most end up empowering the extremist abortion procedures, one which leaves the baby to die in dirty hospital linen closets after the baby manages survives the first abortion.

Jews voting for the guy who hates Jews YET hating the guy who defends Jews.

Gays beating upon Mormons who believe marriage is between a man and a woman YET worship like-he-is-a-rock-star Obama who also believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Demanding free health care YET has the money to see Broadway shows, Springsteen concerts, buy silconed tits and botoxed faces, wear $500 shoes while enjoying five vacations per year.

I am tired of the duplicity and deception; what I do not understand is how can so many wise, intelligent and Ivy-degreed people can be so easily duped.

@ Nony: second grade? Is that the best you can do? I was discussing the outcome – not the absolute – of ugly. If you can’t follow a simple argument, there’s not much I can do to help you.

HPN

Superb. And he’s only using half his brain just to make it fair.

The Republicans have had the podium for the last decade and America has finally awakened. Thank God. The lesson that will be learned is how narrow and out of the mainstream Republican values are.

Oh, and thank you Irish Rabble for being a stand up guy(?), if they have to resort to attacks on Judge Sotomayor’s physical appearance, it pretty much means they don’t have any other argument and are stupid and shallow.

By the way, JB, your interesting observation is quite the argument for eliminating murder from the criminal codes: everybody God made dies sooner or later, right? So God is the greatest murderer or all, right? Geesh. If one does not see a distinction between what happens according to the course of nature and what happens because of deliberate human intervention… well, one doesn’t see much at all.

And that’s fairly stupid considering that God is the greatest abortionist ever. He aborts 25% of pregnancies in the first three months.

My comment is Rush is just stirring the pot. Sotomayor is as Catholic and pro life as Nancy Pelosi. The only thing Republicans can do is to use the hearings as a teachable moment and hope the general public is awake.

First of all is she an actual practicing Catholic who goes to a Church that actually believes in the sacraments.

If she is then that argument is valid in terms of pro-life.

The 2nd point is that any democratic president is going to appoint someone who supports democratic positions 90% of the time. William Donohue has articulated this position.

The problem with doing this is it give democrats a pass on something that they would use to disqualify a republican. I think that as conservatives we should fight, even if we lose.

HPN

Of course, Rush probably ruined any chance of this by calling her a racist. Engage your brain before you open your mouth next time, douchebag.

A to the F: the Constitutional basis for forbidding state legislatures from outlawing abortion is that a woman’s decision about whether to have an abortion is an exercise of personal liberty protected under the 14th Amendment from undue state regulation.

Bob B: Sotomayor has had 5 of her decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court and has been reversed 3 times. I hope Prof. Althouse will correct me if I’m wrong, but my sense is that this isn’t unusual, since the SC often takes cases in order to reverse what the Circuit Court has done. (Justice Alito had two of his opinions reviewed by the SC while he was a Circuit judge and both of them were reversed.) Most of Sotomayor’s 380-odd opinions as a Circuit judge were never reviewed by the SC.

John: between her graduation from Yale Law School and her appointment to the 2d Circuit, Sotomayor served as a criminal prosecutor in state court; was in private practice, specializing in international business litigation; and served as a federal trial judge. This is a background different from the other 8 justices, so she’ll bring career diversity to the Court.

It’s likely her decision in the Ricci case will be reversed by the SC and remanded back to the district court. This means it will be an active case when she’s before the Senate, and she may well decline to discuss it.

According to Dr. Tiller, (as quoted by a Tiller opponent, Phill Kline) most women seeking late-term abortions are doing so because they didn’t have the money to have an abortion during the first trimester.

Maybe Mr. Kline was misquoting Dr. Tiller.

Yours,
Tom

June 3, 2009, 3:37 pm ”

It’s not self-promotion, it’s promotion of thought. Too many Americans don’t think at all – the “received wisdom” from the state-run fawning media certainly isn’t conducive to thought.

No longer is the discretion to slaughter one’s child a “fundamental” right, the mere “chilling” or “burdening” of which violates the Constitution. No longer are laws preserving the right to life considerd inseparable wholes, such as would incur the invalidation of a whole statutory scheme on the basis of a single defect. The handwriting is on the wall, for this is how constitutional doctrines evolve. Who knows, Senora Sotomayor may very well drive the stake deeper into the monster’s heart–stranger things have happened.

If any of the first three object then a dem pol gets nothing. No support, no funding, no national office, etc. This is why Bill Clinton and Al Gore both changed their views on abortion. Sure they will pull out Casey in PA to run saying they have a pro life dem in the senate, and they will let him vote against abortion issues, but they will pressure him to vote for votes of cloture, votes on amendments, votes on rules to advance all of their topics he just gets to vote against the final bill.

Right now the liberals effectively have abortion on demand they can only lose ground. The conservatives can only gain ground. This position hardly every presents itself in American politics. This one is so because it is in the most difficult to change locations, made up of whole cloth in the minds of a majority of nine people in black robes. It is the most stupid way to make policy.

When the SCOTUS overturns Roe, all fifty states will have different laws and those laws will change probably yearly. Any law on the books will take power away from that first group I mentioned above, they will not like it. It will be fun to watch.

Abortion is not a big issue in other countries because their legislatures make laws and satisfy most of the people.

Rush is playing the media very deftly here. Maybe Sotomayor is staunchly pro-choice/pro-abortion, but there are a whole lot of devout hispanics in this country that really do not like abortion. The conservatives and republicans need to make sure they know that the hispanic being touted in the state run media is not of the same mindset as they are.

Personally, I would have liked to see the republicans when they were in power to pass a law putting a $300 tax on every abortion. If you want something to happen less often, tax it.

Ann will have us all look into her Men In Black device. No comments, no memory, no problem.

The main leftist bleat in response to the first quote was that “You are ripping out of context!11!1!1eleventy!1! She was only talking about being wiser/better in discrimination cases!” I heard this tons at Ace, at Volokh, and other sites. It was the consensus lefty talking point in response to that quote.

Never mind for the moment the bizarre and idiotic notion that judges who have been victims of the crimes they are litigating are somehow sure to give a better judgment. From now on, all trials of black men convicted of mugging white men should be adjudicated by white men! It’s the only way to be fair!

As I said, never mind that. Cause what we suspected was a pure BS defense in the original quote, we now -know- to be a completely BS defense.

I just read this entire 1991 speech, and ya know what? Her point isn’t -about- “discrimination” cases. The biggest example she gives to support her quote about women being wiser than men is in how women on the jury of the Menendez Brothers trial voted to acquit while the men to convict. And this is her proof for what she says later, that by “better”, she means women will be more -compassionate- judges.

It’s sexist and bigoted as all hell, and it’s most certainly got NOTHING to do with being only “better” in discrimination cases (which would’ve been a ridiculous point even if accurate). In 1991, she thought as a woman she was better than a man, period, and since then, she’s added that her latina-ness makes her better than whites. That’s -all- there is to it. Will her defenders cease the neverending BS to cover up her sexism and racism? Of course not. New lefty meme coming up… that is if anyone else besides me notices that their last one just got blown out of the water.

Qwinn

You… you drank the “milk”? Dude… -dude-… Glenn makes his “milk” in a -blender-…

“The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.”

Only I would say something like this:

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Sotomayor will show herself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also an impartial judge who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the preferential impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that she can recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society, but that she will put aside any biases she has in order to dispense blind justice. I hope that her jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of political correctness.

“Thus bolsters my argument that a pro-lifer would support a pro-lifer who disagrees with them on everything else; over a pro-choicer who agrees with them on everything else.”

So demanding agreement on more issues is some how better? :)

Single issue people are annoying. People that demand you follow the whole party line are insufferable.

http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/updated-obamas-first-nominee-for.html

June 3, 2009, 4:38 pm

Althouse will erase all evidence of this before he returns like Tom Cruise fixed the house back up in Risky Business. This will never stand. It will be like it never happened.

Now, reasonable people can disagree whether one should terminate a pregnancy where we know that the woman will not be leaving the hospital with a living baby or whether the woman should be compelled to continue and deliver a still born baby or suffer a neo-natal death. Most women seeking late-term abortions are not doing it because they are lazy and forgot to have an abortion during the first trimester. They are doing it because something terrible has happened (either to them or to the fetus). Some suggested reading on “Kansas Stories” can be found at http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/

A country with no abortion at all is a country where an ectopic (outside the uterus) pregnancy can kill women because either you stop cell division of the embryo (abort) or the woman dies.

Could it be that Sotomayor is a stalking horse? Are conservatives and libertarians being set up so that they will offer less opposition to the candidate being held in reserve?

Stranger things have happened.

Answer:
Because she ISN’T prolife or she wouldn’t have been picked.It as satire on Rush’s part with a brilliant twist…………It gets the after life contriceptive people thinking about how the pick hasn’t touched on the subject and it bugs them, they will fret and want answers.

when I found out IP was on vacation, I moved into his house. wonder what reynolds take is on squater’s rights.

ps. he is out of milk and i’m taking the picture he has of himself, nixon, and elvis.

She gives the appearance of being most interested in protecting her own rights. If so, she has already cut the deal with Obama and abortions will continue on her watch.

Why is it that Justices who grow in office, grow liberal. Why can’t they be like most old folks and grow more conservative.

That said, it is fun to contemplate the idea of some doctrinaire leftists’ heads exploding, if La Sotomayora joins the dark side and tosses Roe in to the trash can it should have been tossed into many years gone by.

Nah, never happen, Linda Greenhouse would use her enormous buck teeth to rip La Sotomayora’s heart out of her body.

I think Rush is playing with liberal heads.

The integrity of the Constitution is more important than the lives that would be saved. Judicial empathy/Living Constitution/Make S*** Up is illegitimate and contrary to the rule of law….whether the empathy is on your side or not.

The fact that the Obama administration itself raised this issue is even more evidence that its irrelevant. They’re just trying to erode what turned out to be unanticipated resistance to this nominee.

As to Rush. . .he’s amusing entertainment. I’ll start to take him seriously when he holds elected office (which will be exactly. . .never).

Disclaimer: To the best of my knowledge, nothing in the above paragraph is true. It certainly does not reflect my beliefs. I just wanted to see how long it will take for Bill O’Reilly to quote my “blog post on Instapundit.”